The Usūlīhttps://theusuli.com
Relevant and Important Usūl-ul-Fiqh discussions and more
Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:57:00 +0000 en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://s0.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngThe Usūlīhttps://theusuli.com
Barriers to Witnessing Allah’s Presence in this Lifehttps://theusuli.com/2019/02/20/barriers-to-witnessing-allahs-presence-in-life/
https://theusuli.com/2019/02/20/barriers-to-witnessing-allahs-presence-in-life/#respondWed, 20 Feb 2019 21:15:42 +0000http://theusuli.com/2019/02/20/barriers-to-witnessing-allahs-presence-in-life/Continue reading →]]>Witnessing the presence of Allah in our actions and worship is important to acquire a ‘taste’ of spirituality in Islam. It is from the routes in recognizing the love of Allah for us and recognition for our efforts in this life. It is one of the ways to also prove Allah’s existence to ourselves, although there are other often more important ways, such as through reason, science and the sacred texts, and this is often done through study of Islamic theology, as opposed to Islamic spirituality.

Even if a Muslim’s knows in their mind that Allah exists, they may be prevented from ‘knowing’ Allah spiritually and having a personal relationship with him for a number of reasons:

1. Sins. If you are missing prayers and committing sins by leaving obligations or doing impermissible acts, this darkens the heart and prevents it from witnessing the Creator. Also it invites the displeasure of Allah, leading Him to prevent the person from knowing and witnessing Him in this world and thus the hereafter.

2. Desires. A person whose attention is mostly attuned to their desires will be distracted from the Creator and from protecting themselves from sins. Desires are mostly about fulfilling physical and material needs, even if permissible. A human being needs to rise above their material self to witness the presence of the Creator in their life.

3. Heedlessness. A person who is distracted from seeking the Creator and instead obsessed with other things such as useless information, the empty and vacuous ideas and ramblings of entertainers and musicians etc, will be unable to focus their heart on witnessing the Creator.

4. Psychology. A person who had a spiritually lacking upbringing or who has a mental illness may suffer from insensitivity to their soul and spiritual self. Many Muslim parents stress outward deeds to their children and not the love of Allah and His Messenger, as that is all they know of spirituality. Our environments and cultures are largely materialistic, secular and spiritually dead. Mental illnesses and mental stress can also cause people to lose emotional intelligence or becoming nihilistic in their outlook on life. Such can distract or prevent people from a healthy spiritual outlook in life and in their relationship with their Creator.

So the solution is:

1) Cease sinning. Instill in yourself feelings of regret and ask for His forgiveness, especially in the times where Dua is more likely to be answered, such as during a prolonged sujud. Read the stories of the righteous or accompany and meet them for inspiration.

2) Regulate your desires, look beyond merely fulfilling your physical and material needs and try to explore your soul instead (not the same thing as the mind, it requires more abstract thought rather than logical).

3) Focus your heart on trying to witness Him. Allah will not reveal Himself to someone who doesn’t seek Him in their heart. If you turn away and care little for Him, He will turn away from you and care little for you.

4) Fix your humanity before attempting to connect to the Creator. The best Muslims are those who first have the purest connection to their human selves and are untainted by the spiritual, mental and emotional diseases of modernity, materialism and individualism. One only needs to look at the Sirah and see how the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a moral and ethical human being in touch with his fitrah before he even became a Prophet.

Spirituality is something you have to actively engage in for it to work. For some people it comes more naturally, but for some they have to work a bit before they ‘taste’ it. When they do however, it’s impossible to go back except out of laziness or another spiritual disease.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2019/02/20/barriers-to-witnessing-allahs-presence-in-life/feed/0beach-calm-dawn-267967Ibn MasoodIslamic Thought and the Problem of -ismshttps://theusuli.com/2019/02/03/islam-and-the-problem-of-isms/
https://theusuli.com/2019/02/03/islam-and-the-problem-of-isms/#respondSun, 03 Feb 2019 04:05:22 +0000http://theusuli.com/?p=419Continue reading →]]>Note: after reading a bit about phenomenology I realized that essentially that is what I am doing in this article. I was going to change the title to reflect it but eventually decided to keep it the same to prevent myself having to introduce phenomenology and changing the link to this article.

Bismillah

There are three reasons that have compelled me to write this short article.

The first is that of Muslim researchers and academics in social science disciplines in which their thoughts on Islam and Islamic issues are influenced by the -isms primarily forming the governing principles of their usually Western academic faculties, departments and institutions. Some of these folks may even claim to be part of the ‘Islamic decolonial project’ which seeks to free Islamic thought from a colonized/post-colonial mindset and return to a pristinely Islamic way of thinking, although their weakness in the Arabic language, traditional Islamic disciplines and primary sources of Islamic thought – or simply their a priori acceptance and approval of their local Western cultures – ironically render them highly vulnerable to adopting a Eurocentric/Western critique of traditional Islamic thought.

The second is that of amateur Muslim commentators, critics and debaters who have taken it upon themselves to liberate Muslim minds from foreign theological, spiritual and ideological influencers. Many of these individuals however, have demonstrated themselves to be polemicists rather than nuanced observers, often blanket-condemning many -isms as being inherently unIslamic. For many of these people, the issue is not ‘The Problem of -isms’ rather it is ‘the Problem with -Isms’. The reasons for this lie usually in their shallow or amateur reading of classical Islamic sources, or a simple lack of foundational yet rigorous traditional Islamic education via primary texts. If they had a greater familiarity with the Islamic traditions they would have a more nuanced perspective of how and to what extent Islamic thought is: 1) amenable to new ideas 2) immutable and immovable. For some of these individuals, the problem is even deeper, as they possess not just overly simplistic platitudes of what Islam is, but also of what the -isms are and the ideas they represent.

The third is the issue of political Islamism. After the Arab Spring and the role of many Islamist movements, it has become apparent to many observers that there is a nuanced difference between prepackaged and assuming variations of political Islamism and the nuanced and fluid possibilities of application of Islamic thought in the public sphere that traditional Islamic political thought is able to provide. In short, Islamism (with a capital I) is not equal to Islam in politics and governance. Often the suggestions provided by many Islamist ideas and movements descend into harmful caricatures of Islamic political thought.

So how is Islam and Islamic thought supposed to interact with -isms? In brief, there is no quick answer. The interaction of Islam with different -isms can often become a complex discussion that revolves around a detailed interplay between the room for growth and development that the Islamic traditions provide on their own terms (via the diversity and discussions of traditional usul – the resulting intersections and relationships between the Arabic language, sacred text, community and reality) and the often highly loose and varied range of diverse and complex ideas that each -ism represents. At present, the discussions on this interaction are at a very immature stage. Islamic thought is only beginning to intersect and interact with the modern/Western social sciences and the required discussions need to occur at a much higher resolution than the simplistic platitudes that many activists and polemicists are putting forward. What is required for these discussions are experts who are fluent in both fields – traditional Islamic Studies (i.e. experts in the variance of Islamic thought who are thus intimately familiar with the traditions of Arabic language, law, theology and spirituality) and the social sciences/contemporary Western philosophy, yet are ideologically and spiritually sympathetic to the ‘Islamic cause’.

Let me demonstrate with a few examples, both intra-Islamic and extra-Islamic (I initially meant to isolate this discussion on extra-Islamic -isms, but realized it was an opportune moment to discuss the others as well) . Much of what I mention here is subject to a lot of debate and discussion, but the intent is to explore the nuances present in discussing these -isms with respect to Islam and how absolutes and polemics can be harmful.

Intra-Islamic -isms

In these examples the emphasis is usually on identifying and separating between the proper -ism and the common -ism, and highlighting the problematic usage of language in these discussions. I.e. for example if we were to discuss traditionalism, we should differentiate between Traditionalism (proper: the official and popularly known ideology that comes to mind when Traditionalism is mentioned: those who continue to strictly adhere to one of the four schools of Islamic Law) and traditionalism (common: the recognition, emphasis on and utilization of the epistemological authority of Islamic traditions in law, spirituality, exegesis, theology and spirituality etc when discussing Islam).

2) Sufism – Sufism with a capital ‘s’ is different from sufism or tasawwuf. Whereas ‘Sufism’ or ‘Sufis’ may present themselves as an ideological or social manifestation of understanding Islam, using the terms sufism or tasawwuf is representative of the collective Islamic intellectual and practical spiritual traditions, and is not necessarily tied to a particular outward social manifestation of Sufis today, such as political quietism, wearing a turban or shawl in religious gatherings or religious verbiage emphasizing concepts of ‘light’, ‘seeking’ etc, and not limited to a particular understanding of Islamic spirituality, such as tariqah-based Sufism.

3) Salafism – Here again the emphasis is on the difference between ‘Salafism’ and salafism. Salafism and Salafis have a particular interpretation of what the salaf believed and practiced – most usually either a modified version of Hanbalism or Atharism overriden with the theological understandings of Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab and Ahlul-Hadith fiqh. Whereas the common version, i.e. the act of prioritizing the understanding of Islam with the salaf, is something emphasized by the vast majority of Muslims, although their interpretation of the what the Salaf believed, understood and practiced may differ wildly, as well as how that interpretation is to be applied today.

4) Islamism – Islamism demonstrated itself in multiple forms over the past Arab Spring. Many of these forms showed themselves to be ultimately useless in achieving true political, social and religious change. A political application of Islam is not as simple as Imam, Khilafah, Shariah, Shura or Hurriya. There are serious considerations involved in determining what the civil liberties, public morals, enforcement techniques, minority interactions, foreign affairs and extent of application of Islamic rulings in the public sphere should and would look like in a modern ‘Islamic’ state. Would such a state be an outright theocracy? Would it be a nationalistic, ethnocentric and authoritarian state? Would it be a libertarian, liberal and relatively-to-the-first-centuries-of-Islam secular one? Would it be a mix of the two? In either case would such a state be able to survive? These are all complex questions, and Muslims are currently experimenting with these ideas. But one thing is certain: ‘Islamism’ with a capital ‘I’ is not necessarily always Islamic – and it is probably going to take a lot of trial and error in practical application to find out, unless Allah wills otherwise from His grace.

‘Extra-Islamic’ -isms

These are the examples that are the ultimately intended ones in this article. For each example, I want to demonstrate how the relationship of Islam to these -isms is not a black and white discussion of how an -ism is Islamic or unIslamic, how overly liberal or conservative viewpoints can unsettle the delicate uniqueness of Islamic thought, and how the issue overall is one that requires a deeper, more complex and more informed theological and philosophical input.

1) Modernism

Modernism is the philosophical movement in the Western world that dominated the late 1800s and early 1900s. As with any field of thought, the term ‘modernism’ entails a wide variety and range of ideas. While some of the popular notions of modernism in its Western format – positivism, naturalism and the rejection of religious belief and metaphysics as outdated, unscientific and unnecessary – is one of the groups of ideas outwardly most antithetical to Islam, the roots and reasons for the rise of modernism are worthy of consideration. One of the main reasons for modernism’s popularity was the rise of industrialization, and while it may be convenient to dismiss modernism as the worship of the West or maqasid movements out of control, there are not many educated (whether in Islam or otherwise) Muslims who would deny that Islamic legal, theological, spiritual and hermeneutical traditions are in need of update and reform to deal with the many new challenges and ideas of our time. Also Muslims cannot wholly deny the importance of the scientific method and advances in the natural sciences – they consume, study and produce technology and engineering like any other modern society. Muslims in the social sciences also realize how academic discussion in these subjects has progressed far beyond what many of our traditions and primary sources were contextualized with, and that without a recontextualization of tradition, it is liable to abandon and self-destruction.

2) Post-Modernism

This is an interesting one, and many Muslim males are falling in line with popular figures like Jordan Peterson in wholesale condemnation of the post-modernist movement, not realizing that although post-modernism is a Western and very modernist philosophical movement, it is also what enabled Muslims and researchers in Islamic Studies to be taken seriously in the Western academic world. Post-modernism may have some problematic ideas like the assessment of religion as just another meta-narrative, over-skepticism, and the loss of objective truth, but it is also the movement that pulled apart the hegemony of positivism and naturalism, allowing metaphysics to breathe again. As such, post-modernism is what perhaps allows Muslims to take Islam and their own religion seriously in the modern world on an academic level and free it from the influences of colonial, Eurocentric and modernist influences, while simultaneously via skepticism leading them to nihilism, apostasy and a rejection of tradition. Other ideas like critical theory or intersectionality, despite us disagreeing with their application in some types of feminism and the LGBTQ+ movement, have allowed us to seriously reassess how we view racism in our communities, ontologies and theologies. Many right-wingers in the West hate post-modernism for killing off their cultural supremacy, but Muslims should not be so keen to follow them in condemning the intellectual movement that granted them intellectual, political and social relevancy.

3) Feminism – I have spoken about feminism briefly elsewhere on this website. Yes the current wave of feminism has caused some legitimate concern among Muslims as the ideas and adherents threaten not just small issues here and there but some core epistemological, ontological and even theological issues in Islam, such as the greater emphasis on gender equality to the point that biology is undermined, whereas Islam seems to focus more on equity in domestic and personal affairs and leave equality for theology, worship and other public issues, and the difference in biology between the genders plays a significant role. Other serious problems that have resulted are a general ignorance wilful or accidental of problems that men and boys suffer that are unique to their gender, or the problems that have resulted in domestic affairs because of feminist ideas of family. But some of the social advancements brought about by feminism can be justified very easily from an Islamic perspective, and its not easy to ignore the feminist undertones in the Shariah that the Prophet (saw) and the early Muslims implemented, especially when compared with other faiths and civilizations in the early days of Islam. A highlighting of domestic violence, the plight of single or working women, sexual crimes inferior to outward assault, and male lewdness in general have been incredible positives. Anyone who has lived in a Muslim country knows first hand how Muslim men are not living up to the example of their Prophet (saw) in their dealings with the opposite gender, whether in their families or in public. A renewed attention towards female figures in Islam, an emphasis on women’s fiqh and Islamic education are all examples of positive effects that have occurred in the Muslim word because of feminism.

4) Liberalism – Liberalism is often equated with outright kufr in some circles, as it’s often equated to the idea that human beings can make their own rules free of God’s commands and prohibitions. However, reality of things is more subtle. While yes liberalism has demonstrated itself (together with the post-modernist) movement to be an easy vehicle for intellectual, social and political chaos as in the case with the current Western revolt against multiculturalism, Islam and immigration, it is also worthy of noting the libertarian trends in Islamic legal, political, intellectual and social thought. Just via the sermon that opened the rule of the first Muslim caliph Abu Bakr (rad), one can notice ‘liberal’ political ideas, such as the allowing of the public to correct the leader, or the responsibility of the leader towards the people, and the freedom that the public has from oppression. Others, such as the Islamic system of intellectualism – and the diversity of thought and emphasis on community that exists in Islamic Law are other examples of ‘liberal’ ideas taken for granted that already exist within what is called ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic thought’. Conservatism is another stream of thought that should be discussed here. Islam is not inherently conservative either, although some of its tenets may be held to be socially conservative.

In summary, Islam is not feminist, liberal, modernist or post-modernist, but neither is it inherently anti-feminist, anti-liberal, anti-modernist or anti-post-modernist. It is not for any -ism, but neither is it against any -ism in totality. Both Islam and -isms are too complex to allow for such simplistic reductionism.

Islam is its own entity that governs its own thought and perspectives. It doesn’t mean that we cannot use extra-Islamic ideas to help us improve our understanding and application of our own texts, in the same way that our scholars applied Greek metaphysics and logic, Persian administrative ideas and Western emphasis on technology and economics to Islamic discussions and application. Yes Islam has its own core absolutes unique to itself, and those will sometimes be in stark contrast to the ideas of many -isms, and we need to be well-grounded in our traditions and respect them to maintain ourselves as authentically ‘Islamic’, however there is a lot of room for adding to Islamic thought in the same way that our traditions have adjusted to time, place and idea. But this should not be an invitation to bottleneck Islam and Islamic thought into the -ism of your choice.

The truth is often a spectra of ideas up in the air, not an easy black and white argument that can easily be demonstrated in a Facebook post or an YouTube video. We have to be wary of easy Yes/No or Good/Bad solutions to our problems, while at the same time not sacrificing our core principles. But we must refer to dual experts in Islamic Studies in modern thought, otherwise we run a real risk of making our ideas of gender misogynstic to an obviously un-Islamic degree, ideas of modernism a defeat for Islamic thought rendering it unusable, or ideas of politics dictatorial and single-minded – leading to many Muslims turning away from Islam. We need to accept that an authentic yet functionally effective Islamic interpretation that is fit for the 21st century is not going to look like an authentic Islamic interpretation operating in the 6th, 7th or 8th century of Arabia. And we have to commit to this while still maintaining that qat’i issues of consensus and what is known by necessity in the religion are not going to be sacrificed. It sounds simple, but it is a project that requires many minds, a lot of expertise, and a lot of time, so don’t fall for the reductionism and easy way out of social media aficionados.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2019/02/03/islam-and-the-problem-of-isms/feed/0action-plan-brainstorming-complex-212286Ibn MasoodThe Qur’an and the Ex-Muslim YouTuberhttps://theusuli.com/2019/01/13/the-quran-and-the-ex-muslim-youtuber/
https://theusuli.com/2019/01/13/the-quran-and-the-ex-muslim-youtuber/#commentsSun, 13 Jan 2019 04:44:20 +0000http://theusuli.com/?p=404Continue reading →]]>So the Surah FaQaf video came up in my social circles, and I want to address it not only because it has almost reached 10k views, but as someone for whom the answer is so obvious, I feel a sense of service to the average sincere Muslim who may watch it and feel lost and confused.

When I first saw the video, I was actually amused, mostly because of how easy it is to make a convincing argument in the social media world with just flair, production values and an emotional appeal to legitimacy and authenticity.

Let us analyze: what does this composition actually have in common with the Qur’an?
A) It’s in Arabic.
B) It’s split into verses
C) Its recited in tajwid (or rather an attempt was made to do so, it’s actually quite terrible in that aspect).
D) It’s melodious
E) It has some rhyme.
F) It’s about religious and moral topics.
G) It borrows some syntax from the Qur’an, even some direct copying.

So it has some features common with the Qur’an. Therefore its no surprise that some Muslims watch it and think, ‘Wow. That’s a serious challenge.’ But to an observer educated in Arabic prose, literature, Qur’anic i’jaz (inimitability) and artistic elements, it’s an amateur attempt and another failure in a long line of failures.

To start with, this is missing the most critical component of Qur’anic inimitability: the elegance of how it utilizes the intersection between syntax, meaning and intelligence. Almost every sentence is either of a very rudimentary grammatical structure, or it borrows directly from the Qur’an, and any seeming attempt to insert eloquence seems to be arbitrary, not linked to meaning and just an attempt to make the composition sound like the Qur’an. What I am referring to here is the attempt at rhyme or سجع, but that is a very minor feature of eloquence in the realm of Arabic linguistics (and even in other languages to be honest, even a child can make the endings of sentences rhyme).

To many people the claim of linguistic eloquence may seem like a very subjective exercise, but to those well versed in the Arabic science of balagha and it’s application in tafsirs like al-Zamakshari and Ibn Ashur it’s anything but. Balagha consists of very particular objective reference points by which produced language can be identified as ‘eloquent’ or ‘intelligent’. It’s why some of the best poets of the Prophetic era were dumbfounded by the Qur’an. Their response to the Qur’an was an objective one in the same way their response to different tracts of Arabic poetry was (as well as their resulting judgement of poetry before Islam and considering one poem to be ‘better’ than the other and thus hung on the Ka’bah after the competitions in Souq Okadh).

For myself having read and studied some Balagha and non-Qur’anic Arabic literature like the Mu’allaqat and Maqamat al-Hariri (which is just a basic non-specialist education in Arabic literature), I was immediately put off by the lack of sophistication in the composition, except for the few grammatical structures copied from the Qur’an were borrowed or verses quoted verbatim. You can tell right away that the author’s Arabic skills are amateur at best.

The meanings were also very jarring in their lack of tanasuq i.e. flow and connection from one verse to the other. One of the features of the Qur’an for me is it’s ability to ‘sing’ to the soul via it’s rhapsody of meanings. Topic changes that at first seem jarring when logically analyzed seem to linger perfectly within the chaotic, emotional tempo of the subconscious self. And even better is when one reflects longer on these topic changes the mind comes round and begins to appreciate them. This is not mentioning the inter-Surah features being discussed nowadays like the ring structure of Surah al-Baqarah and how verses revealed in a jumble over months can diffuse into a seemingly complex and sophisticated meaning-based structure of distant yet reflective parallels. For the average reader though, the Qur’an seems to move past the mind and speak directly to the soul, and that meanings-based effect of it combined with its eloquence, intelligence, tajwid and melody is what the linguistic miracle of the Qur’an is really about.

The imitation of Qur’anic grammatical structures in this composition are also noteworthy, as that is just borrowing from the Qur’an and claiming that it is itself unique, despite the fact that the Qur’an was actually inventing new forms of syntactical expression or improving older ones. Any attempt to to ‘bring a chapter like it’ must also replicate the feature of not just linguistic eloquence and intelligence (as well as context coming up later), but new forms of syntactic excellence and creativity in the same way the Qur’an did, not just replicate it. In this the author of the video actually ends up doing the same thing as Musaylimah the liar, whose compositions were little but imitations of Qur’anic prose that omitted the intellectual and spiritual effect of the Qur’an’s meanings. Other more sophisticated attempts like the Furqan also do the same, although that was written by a PhD.

People are in general oblivious today to the objective nature of linguistic appraisal because of our obsession with images. But if you were growing up before the days of TV you’d be very aware of it. For a more relatable example compare the use of imagery and symbolism in a book like Lord of the Flies with any other average work of fiction from the library. There is a huge difference. Anyone with an English major can objectively tell you that Lord of the Flies has a masterful take on symbolism and imagery.

Another critical component missing is the context of the Qur’an. The Qur’an was not just a miracle because of it’s objective lingusitic elegance. Although they may not reach the level of the Qur’an in combined lingusitic, spiritual, philosophical, social, psychological and civilizational brilliance, many compositions in Arabic literature over the centuries reached great heights in spiritual, linguistic and philosophical excellence. Take Imam al-Busiri’s Burdah or Rumi as an example. But in the Qur’an’s case that lingusitic intelligence manifested itself in an illiterate and uneducated orphan, known among his people for being trustworthy and dependable (hence his marriage to a noblewoman and the marriage of his daughters to noblemen), a shepherd/trader, in the middle of a vast and empty desert among an uncivilized, backwards and barbaric people, all before Greek Logic, Syriac Linguistics and Persian administration became fused with Islamic systems of thought (or rather before Islam and Islamic systems of thought even existed in the first place). See my blog post on I’jaz for more a quick read on this.

The melodious/tajwid aspect of the Qur’an so emphasized as being replicated in this video is actually a very minor feature of the Qur’ans inimitability. And unfortunately it has become hugely overstated nowadays because of the whole mp3/YouTube recitation culture and the resulting overemphasis on the 10 recitations. I have met people who have traveled abroad to study just to learn Arabic and Tafsir, and nothing else, which gives a poor prognosis for their eventual understanding of the Qur’an. This is a major flaw of Tafsir-centric pedagogies like Pakistan’s al-Huda Institute, and the catastrophe that is ‘Qur’anic Arabic’ in that they don’t realize how much sciences such as Arabic literature/llingusitics, Fiqh, Kalam, and Usul are part of the Qur’an. Those who realize it truly appreciate masterpieces of tafsir like Razi and the hashiyat on Baydawi for example, because they realize how much even the aqli Islamic scieces are dependent on the Qur’an.

In fact the author of this video, a computer engineer who transformed in a few years into a social media New Atheism/Ex-Muslim evangelist, was actually associated with that organization, as well as Ahle-Hadis/Salafi leanings. I’m not surprised really, a computer engineer who thought the Salafist ontological perspective was unintelligent and flawed? In fact I’m more surprised when people of intelligence remain Salafi/Ahle-Hadis.

I’m also not surprised when this individual started ‘refuting’ professional philosophers/theologians like William Lane Craig using 5 minute YouTube rants, because honestly, how are Salafis any different? The person has just carried on the same cult-like behavior: lack of academic and philosophical rigor, intelligence and grounding in the related education disciplines necessary to be an informed commentator on the subject, and an overindulgence in internet/social media evangelism.

Some people have asked me in the past to respond to his claims or debate him. But honestly I don’t have the time and neither do I believe it is very productive to debate people. I wrote this for Muslims watching his stuff, not to ‘debate’ him. I believe its a waste of my time in general to address amateur, uneducated and unsophisticated YouTube/Facebook criticism of Islam because most of it is just a game of rhetoric and polemic where little in the way of intelligent, academic and informed argument matters. It’s literally about who can shout the loudest. Experts don’t do well on social media because they share a space where idiots can finally have the podium and because nuance is boring and tedious. Just look at the success of Dawkins et al an example. Some of the silliest and most philosophically poor ideas have become mainstream because of their rhetoric.

I’d rather spend my time educating Muslims on the theological and philosophical complexities of Islam and help them realize how they can deal with 90%+ of their questions and help bring Islam and Muslims into the future if they actually made the effort to invest in their time and study their religion, philosophy and science properly.

I’ll end with the advice I usually give most of my students: if you take amateur commentators as an authority (in any field), then you are the idiot. Same goes for referring to the wrong specialist for specialist information. You are the idiot and you are held liable for that mistake because that is perfectly within your capacity to correct. Don’t learn philosophy from scientists (or clinical psychologists for that matter), science from philosophers, or theology from overnight ex-Muslim social media sensations.

Stop going through the social media cycles of controversy and shock/awe that are leaving people in a nihilistic mess and instead get a rigorous religious and modern education.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2019/01/13/the-quran-and-the-ex-muslim-youtuber/feed/2ben-white-197668-unsplash.jpgIbn MasoodAtharism, Ash’arism and Traditionhttps://theusuli.com/2018/12/12/atharism-asharism-and-tradition/
https://theusuli.com/2018/12/12/atharism-asharism-and-tradition/#respondWed, 12 Dec 2018 03:35:49 +0000http://theusuli.com/?p=391Continue reading →]]>I spent an hour or so pondering over the Ash’ari/Athari polemics and realized the massive impact this has on the perception and importance of tradition between these two theological groups. The only way I could get myself to stop the flow of thoughts was to write them, hence this article. At any rate, this is more a summary for myself rather than an exposition for others.

The Atharis

For Atharis the names and attributes of Allah are to be understood according to their apparent meanings and any apparent contradictions between the apparent meanings of these names and attributes and the intellect is explained as the intellect’s failure to understand the essence of Allah. So in reality there is no contradiction and the mind must hold back from making judgement on any seeming contradiction that appears.

Any anthropomorphic element of these names and attributes is negated using the admission that their modality (kayfiyyah) can never be known, but that the apparent meaning of the name or attribute must be affirmed, as the job of the believer is to submit to the texts and not question them. The modality is left to the knowledge of Allah Himself, and we simply say that the modality is as befits His majesty.

Names or attributes cannot be considered allegorical rather only metaphorical if the Arabs considered it so. So for instance if the Arabs before ~150AH understood the word ‘yad’ or hand to have a metaphorical meaning as power, then only in that case can the word ‘yad’ be understood as referring to power in the Qur’an. Otherwise if the allegory was only deduced in the post-classical Arabic period, i.e. that the word ‘yad’ means power, then this is rejected as it did not come from the Arabic language itself. The basis for this argument is that the Qur’an was revealed in pure and simple Arabic that should have been sufficient for the philosophically untrained Arabs to understand and attain a sound theological understanding of the Qur’an.

So for example, in the last third of the night, where Allah is described as descending ‘nazala’ for the faithful, it is not to be asked whether this descent is true or allegorical, rather that the nature or ‘kayfiyyah’ of the descent must not be questioned, but just accepted at its apparent meaning without questioning. The word ‘nuzul’ was not understood metaphorically by the Arabs so there can be no second meaning to the word.

Therefore, the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and Sunnah are king and speak for themselves. Inter-Qur’an and inter-Sunnah exegesis explains much of our variances in understanding the levels of interpretation of different texts. Tradition must be understood from the lens of the Qur’an and Sunnah, not the opposite. Scholars can err, but the apparent meanings of the texts can never err.

In conclusion, this is understood to be the more authentic understanding of Islam as the salaf or righteous predecessors (i.e. first 3 generations of Muslims) were known to understand the names and attributes of Allah by their apparent meanings (ithbat), and not get too involved in any allegorical possibilities in the meaning of these names.

The Ash’aris

For the Ash’aris it is permissible to think of Allah’s names and attributes allegorically (ta’wil). The intellect via rational thought and reason can discover the Creator independently of sacred text, as well as determine some necessary attributes of the Creator as a result. For example, by observing that much of reality is contingent, the intellect can determine that the contingent reality it observes must have been caused by something, which as a result of reality being contingent must be an unimaginably powerful being with its own independent will, the latter demonstrating that it is a living being.

Similarly, the intellect can observe reality and determine that physical and biological reality shows intelligence in its composition and evolution, therefore this Creator must also be unimaginably intelligent.

As this list of necessary attributes builds (independent of sacred text and upto 20 different ones according to the Ash’aris) it is determined that the reality of this being is unimaginable and indescribable according to human parameters. Therefore, when one arrives at a text that in its apparent wording, describes the Creator as otherwise, or with apparently anthropomorphic or material connotations, a contradiction presents itself. The conclusion of the intellect, seen as an extension of the Qur’an own exhortations for Muslims to use the intellect to arrive at the truth, is seen as a certain and epistemically powerful conclusion.

To solve this seeming contradiction, the problematic text is then assigned an allegorical meaning to harmonize it with the theological conclusion of the intellect. So using our example of ‘nazala’ again, the descent is described allegorically as the descent of Allah’s mercy rather than the descent of the Creator Himself, as to describe the Creator as descending would assign Him a direction, and thus a 3-dimensional existence, which makes the Creator into either a material or anthropomorphic entity, thus violating the verses of the Qur’an condemning this as well as the intellectual process that led to believing in the Creator in the first place. Names and attributes found in the texts are thus understood according to the 20 necessary attributes.

The Ash’aris were very aware that the salaf did not assign allegorical meanings to the names and attributes of Allah, so they considered their understanding of theology to be an evolution of the theology of the salaf – an attempt to harmonize textual truths with the newly discovered philosophical and theological truths that Muslims had uncovered from philosophy. Unlike the Atharis, they interpreted the salaf to be affirming the wording of Allah’s names and attributes, instead of their apparent meanings, which they left to the Creator’s knowledge (tafwidh).

The Ash’aris did not extend this ‘natural’ aspect of theology (I.e. the determination of theology independently from text) to ethics and law, as is clear from the books of usul-ul-fiqh, the sheer majority of which were written by the Ash’aris. Ethics and Law, it was made clear, was to be determined from the texts, and could not be determined via the intellect, which was the position of the Mu’tazilah. The Ash’aris as a whole did discuss some aspects of natural ethics and law, but never ventured into ‘hard’ natural ethics and law in the same way the Mu’tazilah did, or to the lesser extent, the Maturidis and Hanafis.

As such, to maintain this delicate imbalance in allowing natural theology but restricting natural ethics, Ash’aris came to rely more on tradition as the restrictive element, not the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Tradition became emphasized, and it was the lens through which the texts were to be understood. Individual scholars can err, but the overwhelming majority or consensus of scholars erring was considered a theological travesty, as how could the Creator misguide His most pious and dedicated servants, and in the most serious of matters – theology, as well?

This emphasis on tradition may also be why the Hanafis have emphasized taqlid much more highly than the other schools. Since the school’s usul is so susceptible to becoming a full-fledged Mu’tazili vehicle via Maturidi ethics and Hanafi rules on using hadith, it would make sense over-emphasize taqlid as a restrictive measure. This is why perhaps Shafiis were much more lenient in allowing their adherents to make taqlid of other schools and even outside the four schools (according to a fatwa by ibn Hajr al-Haytami) as opposed to the Hanafis. It may also be why the Hanafis stressed consensus more than other schools, although I have to research this more to be sure.

Also, theological tradition could evolve, as it had from the time of the salaf to the time of the Ash’aris. And this is why Ash’aris often varied in their interpretation of texts and the allegorical meanings assigned to them, as well other aspects of theology. For example Maliki Ash’aris like Ibn Juzayy refused to assign the names and attributes of the Creator allegorical meanings, instead electing to do tafwidh as the salaf had done. Note however, that the development of Ash’ari theology could also be seen as extension of the time of the salaf if we look at things via the concept of Bid’ah Mahmudah (see my article on Bid’ah for more information).

The Ensuing Discussion

The Atharis and Ash’aris had many criticisms against each other. For example, Imam ibn Taymiyyah argued that the Ash’aris by assuming a contradiction between the intellect and the texts, were landing themselves in a contradiction by saying that the very intellect that had helped them arrive at the texts was now proving to be an impediment. He also argued that intellectual arguments were not required to obtain knowledge of the Creator’s existence, as it was a form of a priori knowledge exemplified by the the concept of fitrah elucidated in sacred texts.

Ash’aris on the other hand argued that saying the Athari ithbat was self-contradictory, as to say the modality was unknown rendered the name or attribute meaningless, and thus the meaning unknown as well. Also, to affirm these meanings for Allah meant assigning Allah anthropomorphic characteristics. It was not enough to say that the modality was unknown, because the meaning of the word was known in the Arabic language and you had assigned that to the Creator.

And they each have rebuttals of each other on these issues.

My Personal Views

I consider this discussion important for my own faith – although not so for the masses – as I wish to meet Allah on the last day with a conception of His majesty and text that He will be most pleased with. It is for this reason that I studied both the Athari and Ash’ari theologies during my studies and kept an open mind to the arguments of each. I do consider both (together with the Maturidis) to be 3 distinctive yet orthodox schools of Sunni theology in the same way that the fiqh madhhabs are 4 distinctive yet orthodox schools of Islamic Law. It seems absurd to me that Allah out of His mercy would allow such exceedingly pious, knowledgeable, sincere and intelligent Muslim scholars to differ in such fine details of theology with penalty in their afterlife.

Perhaps these schools are also manifestations of natural variances in human thought. For example in the same way the human beings naturally gravitate in a secular environment to becoming political, fiscal or ethical conservatives or liberals, perhaps within a Muslim or Islam-affected mindset this is the natural spectrum of variance upon which Muslim thought diffuses. In either case, I find the variance to be normative, though excluding more extreme cases, like Kharijism and Mu’tazilism.

I personally find myself leaning towards the Ash’ari perspective (even though I personally prefer tafwidh over ta’wil) as I have found tradition to be a much more important and powerful restrictive element in the discussion on the control of interpretive choices, especially given how indubitably important tradition becomes in fiqh and how great of a role consensus plays in the Shariah overall. I find the emphasis on the vague notion of ‘apparent meanings’ to be quite distracting from the complexity that is linguistic interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah and delicate balance that exists between the mantuq (voiced) and mafhum (understood) implications of texts. This is why Imam al-Shafii for example, in his al-Risalah, refers to tradition and consensus as controlling factors in the interpretation of texts much more emphatically than linguistic reasons, as due to his high level of linguistic capability he was able to determine the complexities of the process of interpretation to quite a high level.

Also I feel that many of the narrations from the salaf are open to interpretation on these issues, and there may be reason to believe the salaf had a much more diverse and varied range of approaches on these issues. I also feel that ultimately an athari theology comes across as philosophically weak. It may be sufficient for belief, faith and everyday worship, but when it comes to theological discussion and philosophical interaction with foreign theologies it relies too much on ‘open loops’ or ‘maintained contradictions’ to be a strong philosophical tool.

But this is my preference, and I do not wish to impose it on anyone who seeks to follow otherwise. I am still open to changing my mind, and I doubt that this is a conversation that will end in my my mind and heart. May Allah reward us all for our efforts to arrive at the truth, keep our intentions pure and keep us sincere. If anything I would love to see a synthesis of the schools, but I’m not sure if this is possible.

Resulting views of tradition and my thoughts

To me this theological back and forth is relatively inconsequential. As I’ve mentioned, I believe the 3 to be schools rooted in orthodoxy. There is a strong argument to be made, I believe, in linking Hanafi usul to Maturidism, Shafii usul to Ash’arism and Hanbali usul to Atharism, although I have not read any lengthy exploration of this possibility. Although I do anger often at the exaggerations of each school towards the other, and sometimes even the episodes of takfir that seem to be make an appearance now and then.

What is more interesting to me, however, is the resulting epistemological attitude and interpretation of the text-tradition relationship, and especially how that evolves from what at first seems like a completely disconnected conversation on theology.

It is not uncommon to see Atharis stress the importance of keeping Islam pure according to its earliest understandings – hence the popularity of Salafism, which I see as a natural ideological consequence of Atharism, while it is not uncommon to see Ash’aris gravitate more towards Sufis tariqahs and other more outward and emphasized aspects of traditionalism. Even on the social and cultural level, Atharis seem much more willing and able to appropriate modern social and cultural artifacts than traditionalists, who often extend the meaning of tradition to beyond intellectual understanding of Islam to adab, manners, dress, customs and family matters. Although I did not discuss it here at length, what is also not surprising to me is the Maturidi/Hanafi propensity to gravitate towards varying types of ‘hard’ rationalism like Mu’tazilism.

It also plays against them. For example Atharis in their attempt to balance devalued tradition with complex fiqh issues can gravitate towards very maqasid-dependent forms of ijtihad and fatwa which can devalue the very principle of championing the apparent meanings of scripture and lose the intended ‘submission’ aspect, while Ash’aris can over-emphasize or ossify parts of the tradition to the point where the intended point or objective of the tradition becomes lost.

As someone who I feel occupies a rare middle ground between Ash’arism and Atharism (as I see both sides and sympathize with some aspects of Atharism), I do see the need for a nuanced, vibrant and fluid form of traditionalism, where we still consider tradition and fluency in it as paramount yet do not stop the process of engaging in review and reformulation via either going back to Qur’an and Sunnah again, or integrating modern science, philosophy and physics-based cosmology into our theology, ethics and law.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2018/12/12/atharism-asharism-and-tradition/feed/0assemblage-challenge-hobby-1586950Ibn MasoodBrief notes on the miraculous nature (i’jāz) of the Qurānhttps://theusuli.com/2018/05/28/brief-notes-on-the-miraculous-nature-ijaz-of-the-quran/
https://theusuli.com/2018/05/28/brief-notes-on-the-miraculous-nature-ijaz-of-the-quran/#commentsMon, 28 May 2018 00:18:48 +0000http://theusuli.com/?p=377Continue reading →]]>I originally wrote this to help me deliver a talk in my local mosque on the same topic. They were a bit more detailed than my notes usually are because they were to be used as a script by the sign language translator attending. It turns out they also made a quick and useful read.

These points are quick, and detailing these points could result in either a very long article or even a book. In fact the perceptive will realize that most of this is actually summarized from a book: النبأ العظيم by Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Draz. I have added a few points here and there. Interested parties may refer to Dr. Draz’s book (The PDF is available online) for an excellent range of examples and broader explanations.

4 points that prove the miraculous nature of the Qurān:

Point 1: the Existence of the Creator:

Although we are not here to discuss this topic, which is proving the existence of a Creator – as a side note this can be done in one of four ways: either via the intellect (logic/philosophy), the senses (natural sciences), the fitrah (innate disposition of human beings) and ilham (knowledge given by Allah to the person) – the very fact that a Creator of the Universe exists is a proof that there must be some guidance existing somewhere that our Creator gave us. Otherwise what kind of all-Merciful, All-Loving Creator would not interact with His creation?

Point 2:The Sirah of the Prophet ﷺ:

There a number of points we can mention under this:

The personality of the Prophet ﷺ:

The fact that he was known to be al-Amin the trustworthy one before Prophethood, and this was reconfirmed when he first climbed al-Safa to publicly declare his message.

He was illiterate. How could an illiterate man write a book that not just has stories of past nations (as this requires study), but is so intelligently written and has such thoughtful content that even a PhD or scholar of language can dissect, study and find unlimited gems in today?

He was not interested in material gain. He died with barely any possessions. He slept on a bed of date fibres, in a mud house with barely a few belongings, and sometimes was even starving.

None of his Companions noticed if he was a liar or schizophrenic. This is as opposed to Musaylimah the Liar, who was exposed right away by his own people.

He himself claimed that Jannah for him is not guaranteed. Rather even for him heaven is conditional on the mercy of Allah. This is rather inconvenient for a Prophet.

Literally impossible to combine all of his qualities and roles in one human being (political leader, general, father, husband to 9/12 wives, teacher, pastor, worshipper at night) especially if he was someone who had major defects such as being a liar or a schizophrenic.

Why all that worship at night until his feet became red? This was something known about him by his companions, that we would stand up all night in prayer. (story of Ibn Masood praying behind him).

If he did have a teacher, then who? Even the Hanifs became his followers.

His relationship with the Qurān does not fit the mold of an author:

The very fact that he denied he is the author. If the Prophet ﷺ did indeed author the Qurān, then it would have been an extraordinary masterpiece of literature. It is not typical of writers, poets and artists that they let their work be attributed to someone else. Rather the norm is that such people attribute such works to themselves, as they are proud of them and wish to receive appraise for them.

The fact that the Qurān makes claims to perfection and challenges others to produce something similar. Anyone who has written an article or a book knows how atypical this is for a writer. There is always someone who can write better than you, and you will always have some mistake or criticism in your writing. Why would you open the gates to criticism by making this claim?

Somethings are mentioned in the Qurān that criticize him or make him vulnerable to criticism or pick out his mistakes. Why would a liar open themselves up to this?

Example 1 – the story of the Ifk and delay in revelation.

Example 2 – Allah reprimanding him in the Qurān in the story of the honey and a few other verses on other issues. Some of them were in issues of his leadership which are inconvenient for the authority of a leader (e.g prisoners).

Example 3 – the Prophet ﷺ would often wait for explanations of the Qurān from Allah that he himself did not understand. E.g. issue of being taken to account for intentions, the treaty of Hudaybiyyah

That when the revelation would come to him, he would sometimes try to be hasty and recite it at once, and Allah in the Qurān twice told him not to do that. Why would he do this if he was making it up himself?

His miracles. Specifically the Signs of the Day of Judgement, things we see to be true to this day. We might have not seen the rest but we can see these. E.g. Bedouins building tall buildings, Hadith where the Prophet almost exactly describes satellite dishes, TV and headphones. Also hadith to do w/ the future of the ummah (splits, fighting, specific events etc), and future of Islam (split into groups, false prophets etc).

Point 3: Features of the Qur’an itself:

Allah fulfills the Prophecy of the Qurān being preserved. Although this is a long topic, a lot of research has been done on this to the point that most Orientalists even now believe that the Qurān has been accurately preserved from the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Refer to: History of the Qurānic Text – M.Azami

The Linguistic perfection of the Qurān – difficult to explain this in a non-Academic, non-Arabic setting. The Qurān is worded perfectly, it is impossible to word it better no matter which ayah or surah we look at. No sounds, letter, word, phrase, expression or sentence is either present or missing except you can find an intelligent and purposeful reason for it.

Example 1 – Nothing like it – Some scholars even tried to imitate it, but gave up after realizing it was impossible. Others tried to make their own holy books but were laughed at and their religions maintain a cult status, like the Qadiyanis, Church of Latter Day Saints, Baha’is. The True Furqan – also fails, imitates the sound and rhythm of the Qurān only, not meaning, intelligence and language. Also copies whole expressions, phrases and words from the Qur’an and then claims to be a challenge to the Qurān.

Example 8 – Chooses between being vague or detailed appropriately, accurately and perfectly.

Example 9 – The whole Qur’an is summarized and abridged. Books can be written on its verses, even for just one you can write volumes. A testament to this is the vast amount of Islamic literature all of which qualifies as tafsir of the Qur’an.

Example 10 – variances of wording between similar verses – you can tell that there is a purpose and goal behind it. It’s never for no reason.

Example 11 – Very short and poetic verses – the meaning is still profound in them, you never feel like you’ve been left hanging.

Example 12 – When looking at Surahs at a whole – there are main themes running throughout the whole Qurān, as well as surah-specific themes, with corresponding meanings and choice of wording for both.

Example 13 – The structure and harmony of the Qur’an with itself – some have identified for example – a ring structure within the meanings of the surahs.

Its accuracy in describing the psychology and sociology of religious believers, disbelievers, hypocrites etc.

Its accuracy in describing the psychology of a human being with regards to human issues like: patience, anger, gratefulness, faith, family, individualism, community, nation etc.

It somehow always takes the middle path through human extremes in all intellectual fields: psychology, politics, economics, society, family etc. E.g. middle road between capitalism and communism, feminism and patriarchy, chaos and bureaucracy, faith and intellect, peace and war, profit and riba, family and the self, patience and gratitude, intelligence and knowledge etc.

Point 4: The History of the Qur’an since its revelation

The Qurān has remained an object of study for scholars and a object of reflection and spiritual fulfillment for ordinary Muslims for centuries now – the same Qurān without any change in translation or wording like the other texts. They changed from Greek to Latin, and Latin to English and Old English to Modern English to suit the reader. The Qurān has stayed the same but maintained its effect on people’s hearts and minds.

Conclusion

All of this leads us to conclude that the most likely explanation is that the Qurān is truly the true speech of the One Creator.

If we don’t believe this, then the alternative is much more preposterous – that the Qurān, its relationship to its supposed ‘author’ is an impossible rare and freakish occurrence that defies all the norms and even the rarest examples of human capability, authorship, literary capability, and overall intelligence, knowledge and foresight. Its basically the most impossible event in world history.

This is a much greater stretch than believing that it is obviously divine in origin, and the book of guidance sent down to humanity by Allah via the most perfect human being that ever existed.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2018/05/28/brief-notes-on-the-miraculous-nature-ijaz-of-the-quran/feed/248c731ddc12068db665146546b94d041Ibn MasoodOn Salafi ‘Burnout’https://theusuli.com/2018/05/19/on-salafi-burnout/
https://theusuli.com/2018/05/19/on-salafi-burnout/#commentsSat, 19 May 2018 18:16:06 +0000http://theusuli.com/2018/05/19/on-salafi-burnout/Continue reading →]]>As growing numbers of young practicing Muslims (especially students of knowledge or enthusiasts of scholarly discussions) make the decision to abandon Salafism due to either finding it or it’s conclusions intellectually inferior or practically problematic, there are a number of important things to take note of:

– Do not belittle your reasons for finding Salafism enticing in the first place. There are positive and negative reasons.

As a positive: Salafism is a logical first step for many Muslims with taqwa. It promises an attachment to the Qur’an & Sunnah above all else, a freedom from associating partners with the Creator in all its forms, and purity in understanding. Are these not all the first steps of a Muslim yearning to have taqwa in their understanding and practice of Islam? Don’t let the fire of taqwa die inside you. Many Salafis when they ‘burnout’ one of the first things they also jettison is their taqwa.

As a negative: All these promises were in fact oversimplified exaggerations of more complex realities that could only be uncovered by knowledge. The Qur’an and Sunnah could only be accessed by humans: scholars and their intellectual edifices in the form of madhhabs, sciences, ideas and deductions. The concept of ‘associating partners with the divine’ is not as immediately black and white as Najdi Salafi polemic proposes it to be in theory and practicality. Purity in understanding is very subjective: it is possible to be following the salaf but be practicing a version of Islam that is quite different in some of it’s outwardly aspects to what the salaf were doing. The realization of all of this comes with knowledge, learning and understanding. Many ‘burnouts’ after Salafism don’t realize this and don’t put enough attention on learning and education to further enlighten their perspectives.

– Do not lose the importance of principles. Even if some of the principles are wrong, Salafism still has principles. And principles are still pivotal to being a pious servant of the Creator. Many ‘burnouts’, disenfranchised with Salafism and what they perceive to be it’s distortion of Islam and ensuing choke-hold over their lives, abandon Salafism only for an understanding of Islam without principles, instead adopting whatever understanding of Islam is popular or culturally prevalent. That should not be the case. Fiqh, it’s general principles (qawā’id) and foundations (usūl) still exist. There is still such a thing as a ‘normative Islam’ which you cannot let go of and still claim to call yourself a religious Muslim. The Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is still important.

– Understand the sovereignty of the popular and culturally prevalent in informing your decision of what is true and normative. Salafism and Madkhalism was a big thing in the 90s because Saudi da’wah was at it’s peak. Moderate diluted Salafism was a big thing in the 2000s because moderate Salafism was at it’s peak – yet struggling to keep itself together after the Madkhali disaster(s) of the 90s. Today abandoning Salafism for outright modernism is the new thing, due to the effect of ISIS and growing Islamophobia. Instead our notions of what is true and normative should be based on sound knowledge via qualified and relevant scholarship.

– The importance of qualified scholarship. One of the main reasons you became a Salafi is because you were inspired by someone you believed to be a pious and qualified scholar. Except that even if they were pious, they probably weren’t qualified enough. The casualty list when it comes to Salafi scholars is unfortunately high. Without giving names, there are famous and reputable Salafi scholars (all real first or second hand examples coming up) who have given fatwas saying that learning tajwid is bid’ah, or that learning usul-ul-fiqh is the work of misguidance, or are claimed to be experts in tafsir but can’t grammatically parse a sentence in Arabic, or have studied only Hadith but not fiqh, or are self-studied, have not studied one of the four schools of Islamic law etc. This is not even counting the many Salafi speakers out there whose average Islamic Education is a 4 year bachelors degree from KSA where the most eventful thing they learned was Kitab al-Tawhid and Bulugh al-Maram. Have a high standard for scholarship. If the teacher has not mastered the sciences of the Arabic language, usul, one of the four schools, the sciences of Hadith and tafsir, knows their history, and is aware of the diverse needs of their local communities, then it’s not worth it.

– Not joining the other side of the sectarian riot. Being a Salafi ‘burnout’ is no excuse to join the extremes on the other side of the pond. The Athari school is still a valid theological school. And the Hanbali school is still a valid legal school. And even though his application was technically Kharijite in character, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was not the only scholar to strongly dislike the permissiveness or excessiveness of some traditionalists when it comes to taqlid and interaction with the dead/graves. The Imams Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Shah Waliullah, and al-Shawkani, al-San’āni and others all also had their own reservations about these trends. Im not saying I agree with these ideas or wish to propagate them, but we must admit that when we look at history they do constitute a significant bulk of inter-Sunni discourse and can’t be brushes away as innovation or misguidance so easily. Don’t re-enact your past from the opposite direction.

– Consider traditionalism. No I’m not asking you to go full Hanafi/Sufi and join the cliques etc. But what traditionalism offers (although some traditionalists themselves unfortunately end up obfuscating this) is an opportunity to graduate your understanding and practice of Islam in a time-tested, thoroughly developed way. Don’t want to become a scholar and want to continue focus on your practical life? There are texts, study patterns and spiritual guidance for that. Want to be a student of knowledge? There’s a system and pedagogy for that. Want to be a scholar? This is the best and most well-rounded way to go about it, as the traditions will give you the necessary tools to become an independent thinker yet still remain faithful to the 1400 years of cumulative Islamic thought.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2018/05/19/on-salafi-burnout/feed/1burning-fire-flame-21462Ibn MasoodDr. Jordan Peterson: the blind ideologue?https://theusuli.com/2018/05/06/dr-jordan-peterson-the-blind-ideologue/
https://theusuli.com/2018/05/06/dr-jordan-peterson-the-blind-ideologue/#commentsSun, 06 May 2018 22:41:40 +0000http://theusuli.com/?p=343Continue reading →]]>I just watched this latest NBC interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson, and boy do I have a lot to say about it.

First of all, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Peterson in his easily demonstrated expertise as a clinical psychologist and a scientist. Perhaps he also has a lot of credibility in Christian theology but that I do not possess any expertise or even experience in that subject to comment.

But however when it comes to politics, as I will soon explain, the man is politically blind, either willingly or unwittingly. If its willingly, then the only conclusion can either be that he is evil or conniving and thus hiding his true intentions or thoughts behind his intellectualized rhetoric, or he is genuinely afraid to admit that he has crossed out too far from his realm of expertise and is intelligently trying to hide his missteps, or that he’s just arrogant. The first two seem unlikely, the last is plausible but not possible to confirm as I’m human, not the Creator and can’t look into people’s hearts.

If its unwittingly, then I explain this below, i.e. that this is probably a result of typical academic naivete in intellectuals specialists who cross out into realms of expertise and let their high level of intelligence and ability to think and philosophize trick them into a failure to realize their lack of expertise in the topics they are not specialized in. Intelligence is not everything. Knowledge is half the battle.

As for the interview itself, then according to Dr. Jordan Peterson, the Western World and Capitalism are not responsible for inequality. Hmm so I wonder… Whose idea was neoliberal economics, modern finance and big banking that led to the creation of massive corporate bodies, consumerism and crippling personal and corporate debt? China? Muslims? Russia? Brazil? Who controls the IMF and the WTO? Who has been controlling World Trade so far since WW2? Right. Moving on.

I do agree with one thing: social classes are an inherent feature of human society, and in fact I mentioned a month or so ago how Islam seems to acknowledge this and not try to eliminate it, rather to teach people how to live and conduct oneself ethically in a socially stratified society.

Interestingly the equality of outcome that Dr. Peterson so abhors is what Islam advocated for Muslims, so as long as they were from the pious. This is why Arab domination of Muslim lands and politics didn’t last, giving way to either Turkish or Persian domination at one time or another, whether in politics or intellectual activity. Equality of race was theoretically present, practically implemented most of the time. Whoever served Islam the most got the respect of the rest of the Muslim world.

Peterson can’t seem to accept the fact that the main reason equality and equity are failing as concepts in modern Western society is not because they are failures as theoretical constructs, but because non-colored people don’t want to relinquish their cultural and political sovereignty over the Western world.

Then Dr. Peterson refuses to concede that the majority of his listeners and supporters of what he says (i.e. not fans because only entertainers have fans apparently, and because he feels that everyone who listens to him is listening carefully and critically accepting it – surprising coming from a psychologist by the way) belong to the right. Yes. This is why organizations that have ties to the far right such as Rebel Media love Dr. Peterson.

Then he refuses to answer the question about whether he belongs to the far-right and refuses to concede that he belongs on a political spectrum or is even talking politics in the first place. He insists that what is saying is ‘deeper’. Deeper it may be, but it rises to the surface as political ideas and ideology. Dr. Peterson claims to dislike ideologues, but he is unwittingly becoming an ideologue himself, or at the very least functioning as one in society today.

And this is typical of many academics who unwittingly (and usually either due to arrogance or naivete) talk about fields of expertise other than their own. They don’t have the necessary expertise in that field (in this case politics) as a specialist would, but their expertise in their own field (in this case clinical psychology) tricks them into thinking they have expertise in the other. This is a common problem among academics, even those in the Islamic sciences. Humility or at the very least a greater sense of self-awareness are usually what stop academics from falling too deep into this trap, although given the multidisciplinary nature of most sciences (natural or social) it is a habit that is impossible to eliminate entirely.

Then there is Dr. Peterson’s cudgel against his accusers that he is aligned with the alt-right: That they are biased because of their alignment with the alt-left. Not only is this a blatant profession of guilt for being blinded by the current culture wars, it’s also not true. I for one, am not a radical leftist, nor do I appreciate them in anyway although like Dr. Peterson, I sympathize with their motives. As a Muslim, most would say my views are quite conservative and traditional, and in fact align more closely with the right or center-right side of most modern political attitudes in the West.

Then according to him, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is from the alt-right or a fascist, despite the fact that his ideas and thoughts are strongly rooted in Carl Jung, traditionalism and mysticism – all linked to Nazism in some way either as occasional philosophical sympathizers or philosophical precursors. Not to add his love or respect for New Atheists blinded by scientism, one of the determinants in Nazi attitudes towards race and their eugenics projects. Such patterns in his thought were masterfully demonstrated by Pankaj Mishra in a recent article – which was masterfully sidestepped and left unresponded to by Dr. Jordan Peterson with his claims to being offended, complete with an insult (despite the fact that he insists tolerating offensiveness is necessary to have important conversations) on behalf of his friend, which to be honest I think is a gross misreading (intentional or otherwise) of Mishra’s intent behind that sentence. Also check out this excellent commentary on the exchange on Reddit.

Then lastly Western feminists don’t criticize Saudi Arabia, so they must secretly be in cahoots with Muslims. This is downright hilarious coming from someone considered to be an intellectual. Firstly it lacks an awareness of the distinct resentment that many Muslims have for many feminist ideas. If feminists were in a secret underground alliance with Muslims (and Saudi Arabia lol) as a whole, Muslims would be the first to complain. Secondly why should Western feminists concern themselves with Saudi Arabia when they perceive more immediate and important threats to women at home? Thirdly Saudi Arabia has enough of its own native feminist movement (unorganized mind you considering how political movements are banned in the autocratic minority of KSA). This is Dr. Jordan Peterson evolving from popular intellectual to conspiracy theorist in a matter of seconds.

In fact whenever Dr. Peterson speaks about Islam or Muslims he exposes his greatest weakness and most well-hidden flaw: political amateurism. The man simply does not understand Middle Eastern politics whether it’s history or its current internal problems and issues. And this begs us to ask: then on what basis has he made previous statements in the past such as allusions to poor economic conditions in Muslim countries being an indicator of cultural, moral or religious failure? And don’t get me started on the typical obsession with Saudi Arabia as some paragon of applies Islamic ethics that is typical of many amateur commentators on Islam and the Middle East.

A lot of male Muslims are falling for Dr. Peterson’s rhetoric. Most (like his non-Muslim male fans – yes I said it) are woefully unprepared to digest the academia and primary sources that feed and weave through Dr. Peterson’s thoughts. Neither have they read enough history, political theory or philosophy for themselves to decipher the ramifications and underlying foundations of what Dr. Jordan Peterson is saying.

Sadly these men are looking for a role model for what they sometimes legitimately and sometimes illegitimately perceive as a social assault on the concept of masculinity and manliness in the West. Muslims would do well to remember that our ultimate role model and source of information on what informs manhood is the example of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his interactions with the opposite gender (and in their fully explored glory, not carefully handpicked angles to support their own perspectives), not the conception of manhood celebrated by Western conservatives or their liberal opponents. The manhood and relationship to the opposite gender demonstrated in the character of our beloved Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم is much more complex and wholesome than the caricatures and stereotypes that the current culture wars in the West are exporting into our minds.

UPDATE: Read this, its an excellent article echoing many of my sentiments, except its by a friend and senior colleague of Dr. Peterson’s.

FURTHER UPDATE: This is by far the best analysis of Dr. Peterson I have ever read.

I mostly chose to share this here because I found the recent article by Yaqeen Institute to be highly ineffective in conveying its message and addressing the concerns many people have about feminist thought which are rooted in a perceived conflict between Feminism and Islamic epistemology, not in whether it is possible to craft a pro-feminist argument from the apparent meanings of sacred texts.

Before we discuss this, we must make two points:

Firstly, it is very important to mention that Islam defines itself, it is not defined by anything else. The Qur’an sets its own rules for its interpretation, as well as the interpretation of the Sunnah. Scholars over the centuries have identified these rules, encoded them and recorded them in a science known as Usul-ul-fiqh, or Hermeneutics in English. As Muslims these are the rules we must use to interpret our sacred texts as they have been mentioned by the texts themselves and agreed upon by our scholars (who the Prophet ﷺ referred to as the inheritors of the prophets).

Secondly we should treat feminism as we treat any ‘-ism’ in the world – we understand it from the point of view of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Anything that agrees with Islam, we should have no problems in accepting, and anything that goes against Islam, we should have no problems in rejecting. Therefore it is grossly inaccurate to say that Islam is, for example absolutely feminist, or that Islam is absolutely not feminist, or that Islam is absolutely capitalist, or Islam is absolutely not capitalist.

Rather Islam is its own entity. You will see select shades of different ‘-isms’ in it depending on which of the variety of scholarly interpretations of it you choose to study and follow.

The problem with ‘-isms’ in general, whether they be communism, capitalism, liberalism, secularism, feminism or even Islamism (in political thought), is that they are often very wide-ranging and expansive in their theory, scope and application, to the point that some people take them as universal ideas to understand life, society, humanity and sometimes even God and the universe.

This becomes a serious problem if we choose to adopt one of these ‘-isms’ and use it to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah, as by doing so we effectively replace the rules of scholars in interpreting them.

Feminism is no different. It consists of a very wide scope of ideas, philosophies, beliefs and perspectives. Some of these ideas are Islamically valid and perhaps even needed, others are Islamically invalid, false or sometimes even dangerous for one’s faith.

Examples of feminist ideas that are valid are for example, being against domestic abuse, or promoting education for females. Examples of incorrect and invalid feminist ideas are for example, unrestricted promotion of abortion, being against Islamic rules of women’s clothing, or believing that men and women are equal in every way (as Muslims we believe in equity between genders, not equality – the Qur’an and our own biology are testament to the fact that men and women are different). Some extreme Muslim feminists in recent times have even gone as far as to attack Ibrahim عليه السلام for leaving his wife Hajar in Makkah. Such examples are nothing more than the result of ignorance, confused understandings of religion, Satanic influence and a lack of the fear of Allah.

Any attempt to use feminism instead of Islam’s own rules of interpretation to interpret our sacred texts is wrong and in effect destroying the chain of continuity in understanding between us and the Prophet ﷺ via the scholars of Islam.

However if someone comes to a more ‘feminist’ understanding of Islam via the science of Usul-ul-fiqh i.e. via the correct application of the Arabic language, sciences of the Qur’an, sciences of Hadith and while respecting the consensus and traditions of Islamic scholarship, then this is acceptable and should not be condemned.

Barring the more extreme examples, you will find most mainstream, otherwise religiously practicing Muslims ‘feminists’ concede to the above, especially if faith is alive in their hearts. They will say that when they speak about Feminism, they obviously don’t mean those aspects which disagree with the texts, and they certainly don’t mean to take over the hermeneutic sovereignty of the Arabic Language, Qur’an, Sunnah, Consensus and Analogy that makes Sunni Islam the normative understanding of Islam that it is. But then they continue to use the same unrestricted language (and same unrestricted behavior and activism) when discussing or promoting Feminism.

The language we use to convey and explain ideas is important. If we mean to mention a general idea or concept and have encapsulated it in our understanding in a restricted manner, then we should speak and write about it in a way that makes the restricted nature of our understanding known, otherwise either we are being intellectually inaccurate at our best or at our worst, intellectually dishonest. Otherwise a misuse of language is devastating in a world where Muslims are largely ignorant of their religion and Islamophobes are growing ever more influential in society.

]]>https://theusuli.com/2017/11/05/islam-feminism/feed/0art-awareness-campaign-622135Ibn MasoodProtected: Exploring the differences between the Atharis and the scholars of Kalamhttps://theusuli.com/2017/05/03/the-essence-of-difference-between-the-atharis-and-the-scholars-of-kalam/
https://theusuli.com/2017/05/03/the-essence-of-difference-between-the-atharis-and-the-scholars-of-kalam/#respondWed, 03 May 2017 19:56:41 +0000http://usooli.wordpress.com/?p=268This post is password protected. You must visit the website and enter the password to continue reading.
]]>https://theusuli.com/2017/05/03/the-essence-of-difference-between-the-atharis-and-the-scholars-of-kalam/feed/0adult-ancient-arena-289831Ibn MasoodA Sample Study Ladder for Mastering the Arabic Languagehttps://theusuli.com/2017/01/28/a-sample-study-ladder-for-mastering-the-arabic-language/
https://theusuli.com/2017/01/28/a-sample-study-ladder-for-mastering-the-arabic-language/#commentsSat, 28 Jan 2017 21:12:40 +0000http://usooli.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/a-sample-study-ladder-for-mastering-the-arabic-language/Continue reading →]]>From a Facebook group where someone asked about important books in learning Arabic:
Learning Arabic consists of three steps:

2) Studying Arabic as a science (can take 2-4 years depending on student)

3) Intensive Academic expertise/research (Lifetime)

The first stepconsists of one word: Practice.

Practice, Practice, Practice your reading, listening, speaking and writing skills as much and as often as you can to get to to fluency. It can take 2-3 years to obtain full fluency (or more) don’t despair. The key is consistency in practice, even if its only 1/2 hour everyday (although more is better).

Important books for this are:

– the Bayna Yadayk series (preferably with a teacher who can give you speaking and writing practice).

– My personal favorite for self study: a book called “Learning Arabic through the Islamic texts” by Syed Iqbal Zaheer.

– Qasas-ul-Nabiyīn lil-Atfāl for reading practice

– Suwarun min Hayātis-Sahābah for reading after Qasas.

– Other things you can use for practice include Arabic Youtube (like the Omar series, Arabic cartoons etc)

– al-Nahw al-Wādih

Do not cross over to the next stage until you have achieved at least 80% or so fluency. Ask around for additional resources for practice.

2) Studying Arabic as a science – this should be done with a teacher

If you are a natural at languages, any teacher who has studied these texts will suffice, otherwise a teacher skilled and fluent in these sciences is highly preferred (doesn’t have to be a specialist in the Arabic language though, some scholars of fiqh and hadith can also teach language very well).

– Lāmiyyatul-Af’āl – I prefer the sharh of the author’s son for the student – although the teacher can use others to reference from.

– Alfiyyatuibnu Mālik (with a lot more practice in I’lal/Ibdal etc)

– Taysīr-ul-I’lāl wal Ibdāl – can be studied on one’s own after the alfiyyah – excellent book for practice.

Balāghah:

– Durūs-ul-Balāghah – an easy, comprehensive introduction

– Al-Balāghatul-Wādihah – Important to learn Balaghah on a practical level.

– Sharh Mukhtasar Sa’d (or Mukhtasar-ul-Ma’āni) – Very important text to study, will really make the connection for you between logic and balaghah, as well as opening up advanced balagah texts for you.

Adab:

– Any text in Urūd/Qawāfi with a teacher.

– Sharh Mu’allaqāt al-Sab’ or Ashr

– Selected study from al-Mutanabbī

– Maqāmāt Al-Harīrī – extremely important for building vocabulary

– Al-Umdah – a comprehensive text on the sciences of poetry. I forgot the author but I think his nasab was al-Qazwīnī

3) Intensive Academic expertise/research – a specialist in the Arabic language will know way more than I do.

Nahw:

– Other explanations of the Alfiyyah such as Imam al-Ushmūnī’s, Abū Hayyan, al-Shātibī, Ibn-Aqīl.

– Explanations of Imam ibn Mālik’s Tashīl – Abu Hayyan’s is a famous one and his students rebuttal is not bad either.

– Imam al-Zamakshari’s works (and their explanations)

– Kāfiyatu-ibn-il-Hājib and its famous explanation.

– Kitāb-al-Sibawayh if you’re feeling adventurous.

Sarf:

– Shāfiyyatu-ibn-il-Hājib and it’s explanation.

– Al-Munsif

– Al-Mumti by ibn Usfūr.

– Al-Mustaqsa by Dr AbdulLatīf alKhatīb

Balaghah:

– Abdul-Qādir al-Jurjānīs books

– Mahmūd Shākir’s books

– Muhammad Abu Mūsa’s books – I wonder if anyone has tried to teach from these instead of classical texts?

– Tafsīr Al-Zamakshari

– Tafsīr ibn Ashūr

Adab:

– Maqamāt al-Harīrī (yes again)

– Al-Jahidh’s books especially Al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn

– Al-Kāmil by Imam al Mubarrid.

– Al-Khasa’is of Ibn al-Jinnī

– As for poetry then refer to following link: https://youtu.be/d-FxfkAABVg

This list seems dauntingly long, but the question you need to ask yourself as an Arabic learner is: Why do I want to learn Arabic?

If you want to become a scholar, the whole list applies. If you don’t then the length of the list varies depends on what you want to achieve.

For those who want only a basic grasp of the Qur’an in Arabic so they can read small tafsirs on their own, or to engage in Modern Arab culture, then the first stage will suffice.